this page intentionally left blank

i caught part of a show on the discovery channel last night, about time (in general). during the segement i watched, the host (a physicist, i think) was discussing the possibility of discovering a biological means to circumvent death. the premumption was this is a possibility, provided we figure out how to either shut off the cell aging process, or kept cell replication turned on. either way, the implication is there is no biological need to die, so let’s figure out how to prevent death.

this is a very bad idea.

why? everyone supposedly wants eternal life (although, to be precise, everyone actually wants eternal youth, as swift so kindly points out to us). what’s wrong with living forever? well a couple of things.

first and foremost, to the best of our knowledge matter is finite. if one does not die, one never returns to the system. on it’s own, this is not particually much of a problem. where it becomes one is when one reproduces. consider this: there are currently a bit over 6 billion humans alive. imagine if suddenly, no one would ever die of old age again. now imagine birth rates don’t change. how quickly would we run out of, well, everything? just because one doesn’t die of old age, doesn’t mean one cannot starve to death.

so, do we allow only childless persons to live forever, on the condition they be sterilized? or, even grandfather in all living persons, on the condition the human race cease reproduction? who would agree to that? what other options are there? exoplanetary colonization? still a long way to go towards achieving that.

ah, but if no one dies, then time is no longer important, right? we could hold off on reproduction untill we find a solution to potential over population, right? perhaps. but consider how one’s thinking grows more conservative with age. would this be stopped by halting cell aging? or would people grow ever more stubborn with the passage of centuries? innovation is, typically, driven by youth because of the lack of experience.

often, our philosophies deal with dualism. without darkness, the can be no light. without conflict, no peace. without sorrow, no joy. is the same true of life and death? will we still be truly living, in more than a biological sense, without knowledge of our mortality? this same show, wondering about how we can excise death, also claims knowledge of death as foundation for human culture and belief systems. we believe we are the only animals on the planet attuned to our own mortality (well, the show’s writers do; i don’t necessarily agree). one could then argue, if one still felt the need to make humans special, that self-awarness is not sentience; knowledge of mortality is. would then, immortality remove our sentience? a semantic point, perhaps. but it would change humanity, and not necessarily for the better.

the prospect of a cessation of one’s existance is certainly frightening. i’m in no hurry to experience it myself. however, it also seems necessary. we know that upsetting the balance of systems creates chaos until they can regain equilibrium. immortalizing all humans would certainly unbalance nearly every ecological system we know. what would the cost of regaining it be? i don’t think it’s worth it; not even for myself or my loved ones. too much else would be lost.

for those of us curious about what mysteries lie hid deep within the creation museum, but just not curious enough to actually bother going to it…behold! there is an answer. yes, a kindly young couple (with nifty cool t-shirts) went undercover for us, and present for all a photo-journalistic journey through the creation museum.

i find myself oddly disturbed, saddened and fascinated at the twisting attempts to turn evidence for evolutionary and plate tectonic theories into support for young earth creationism. and yet, they still can’t seem to escape observations such as this.

part of me wants to applaud their faith, yet i cannot. because it is a false faith. yes, i know faith is believing something to be true when you have no proof that it is. however, that does not equate to believing something to be true when it has been conclusively demonstrated to be false. to maintain such unwavering belief in falsehoods demeans what faith should truly be.

the issue at hand was transformation vs. rearrangement, and I asked you about igneous v. metamorphic rocks. How do they work? How do scientists distinguish different degrees of change? Is this model a helpful metaphor for talking about human change?

as you likely know, there are three major groupings of rock: igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic. you mention only igenous and metamorphic, but we really have to dicuss all three. igenous rock is primal and primary. that is, it is formed by cooling magma, either extrusively (ie: basalt) or intrusively (ie: granite). thus, as the earth first began to cool and form a crust, the first rock type to exist was igneous. sedimentary rock is formed from the lithification of eroded igneous and metamorphic rock; metamorphic rock is formed by the alteration by heat and/or pressure of igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic rock.

in a way, it’s like heraclitus’s river, again. the instance changes, but what underlies is the same. consider marble and limestone. chemically, they are identical: calcium carbonate. yet, marble is metamorphized limestone. what changes? crystal structure. however, that simple change has a profound effect.

granted, this is but one example of metamorphism. a simple one at that, as there is no alteration mineralogically. heat and pressure are extremely important factors in the crystalization of minerals. but, i suppose to say there is only rearrangement, not change is, while accurate, incorrect. that does imply there is no change at all in the universe.

as far as metaphor goes, i’m unsure. one could consider humanity as a base, with culture acting as a metamorphizing force. but that feels wrong to me. i think of culture more as clothing. changing clothes doesn’t change the person wearing them, but it can and does change the perception of that person.

since my last entry i’ve moved and my cousin has gotten married. busy, busy, busy.

wedding was fun, as it was well lubricated. though i must say that my uncle’s claim of old smuggler being “a good scotch, for the money” is wrong. i suppose this is the downside to enjoying one’s vices: not everyone shares your good taste. yet, i can’t always carry a bottle of single malt whisky with me when i travel. a tragedy, really.

as for moving, well, it’s sheer delight to finally be living with the woman i love so dearly. still need to finish unpacking, but that takes time. of which not much is availible. plus, i’m lazy. granted, my desire to finish unpacking is also fueled by laziness. that is, i’d like to get my reading chair set up and books on the shelves, so that i can more efficently waste time. [grin] found a new pottery studio to work in, so that’s good. as an added bonus, since they are a larger shop, with more classes, there are very frequent firings. so less wait time for work. and i can try my hand at working with porcelin or raku. very cool. A also found glass blowing classes, and i think i might give that a try. fascinating craft and i’d like to explore it. think she’s interested too, so it will be a fun thing to do together.

that’s all for now, as the grind calls. gotta get the work in, since i have to quit work somewhat early to get to class.